POLITICS: RANT: The “Social Contract” does not exist! And some people make asinine arguments for why it does. Tangents over “definition of law” ensue.

This is just a draft; I very well may flesh this out more in the future. But anyway:

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT DOES NOT EXIST

The social contract is an abstract invention of people who want to praise authority. (There are many invalid and valid reasons to praise authority.)

But it is treated like a god. It doesn’t actually exist. People repeat their claims that it exists, but, much like god, saying something over and over doesn’t make it true. Nor does it matter if it comes out of the mouth of Moses, Thomas Hobbes, Jesus, John Locke, God, or Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It doesn’t matter who talks about something — what matters is if that something is true.

And the social contract is not true. At the very least, it is a poor abstract political concept that represents a poor way of making a point.

A contract requires consent between 2 parties.

Nobody chooses to be born, or chooses which country, community, or society they are part of. Nor are people old enough to consent to things until they are 18. This is the basis of statutory rape, among other laws. Nor do people enter into contracts as groups, where one is an unwilling participant simply because you are part of a group. Even in class action lawsuits, you have to agree to have money awarded to you. (I always thought that was funny: WHo doesn’t want free money?) It’s simply not a contract in any way, shape, or form.

I mentioned this to someone I know — and his laughable response was: “No one chooses to be born, but you are still bound by the rules of law you’re born into, whether here or anywhere else in the world. We don’t choose our parents or siblings, but that’s kind of tough shit, isn’t it?”

Wow. Way to completely dodge the issue. “Tough shit.” Here’s the funny part about this person’s logic… I tell them to think about how that is applied to black slaves in the 1800s, to people under Sharia law, to people who are victims of the law today (gays who can’t marry, many other examles). His laughable response? “Neither of those things represent the rule of law…. You are using “law” in two different senses of the word. Pick one. I know you’re not so stupid as to fail to understand the difference between law based on the legal tradition of the Magna Carta vs. Sharia.”

Wow. I can either agree with what he said, or acknowledge that I am stupid. Hah! Apparently, “law” in America means something different than “law” in an Islamic country. (Which is very funny, because the dictionary definition for Sharia includes the word…[drumroll]… LAW!)

Law is, succinctly, that which rules us. Very few people are actually subject to a law that they personally voted on or crafted. For the most part, nobody has any consent into which laws directly affect them.

Here’s the hilarious part: This person’s response to me was: “The word “Islamic” is a modifier on “law,” changing the meaning. You know they are not the same thing. I know you know the difference.”

So here we have it. By the logic of someone trying to justify the social contract to me, “Islamic law” is not “law”, despite having the word on it. Wow. He knows I know the difference, and yet I’m positive there is no difference. Use another word if you’re trying to talk about something else.

They also said: “The phrase “law” = “that which rules us” is a tautology and meaningless without specification.”

Wow. Meaningless. Of course I could have cited the dictionary definition, before this person cut me off. Which is: “a binding custom or practice of a community”. That most certainly applies to all law, before or after the Magna Carta, including Sharia, and everything else under the sun.

Definition 1B: “the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law”. OMG! That is a tautology and is meaningless with specification! Except for the fact that Merriam-Webster carries a great deal of weight in the “meaning” department. It’s a dictionary, after all. Anyway, 1B applies to Sharia, Slavery America, and everything else under the sun.

1C: “A rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe.” Applies to all forms of government, including Sharia.

Definition 2 is religious. But it’s the same thing as 1. Religion, when it becomes a set of rules to be followed, becomes government. That’s why Sharia law is law. I don’t know why this is a hard concept. That’s why it’s the same word in the diciontary!

Anyway, the whole “definition of law” thing was a tangent that detracts from my original point: THE SOCIAL CONTRACT DOES NOT EXIST. Saying it does makes it exist no more than a congregation saying god exists makes Him exist. The next time somebody says the social contract justifies something, I’m going to tell them that imaginary concepts don’t justify anything. COME UP WITH A REAL REASON, AND LEARN A BETTER WAY TO MAKE YOUR POINT. The social contract is just an item of faith for people who like to worship.

And oh, if the person who cut off my discussion wants to comment here, it will marked as spam. Quid pro quo. Tit for tat. You cut me off, I cut you off. You had your chance to make a valid point, and you blew it. But if someone else wants to — email-verifiable comments only — then feel free to tell me why I’m wrong. You probably won’t be happy with the debate that ensues, though, as I am not going to budge. But I would relish the opportunity to tell yet another person why they are wrong :)

10 Responses to “POLITICS: RANT: The “Social Contract” does not exist! And some people make asinine arguments for why it does. Tangents over “definition of law” ensue.”

Bruce P B: “a, we got the social contract with Hobbes and Leviathan in Political Philosophy. Most people go along with it, although nobody signed anything! Such a deal! Contract? Also, the corporate entity is a convenient fiction, invented so as to absolve anyone of personal responsibility. Elections and the contract with America…fuhgeddaboutit!”

It’s not a contract. They should come up with a better term. Just because some fancy philosophers that we all had to study in college came up with a concept doesn’t mean it’s valid and actually exists. There’s plenty of counter-examples to this. Especially in gospels :)

Bruce: “One thing, I think that Hobbes himself viewed society on the organic model, which is also the basis of fascism: anything not part of the body and healthy for the body gets excised. It was one of the guys we looked at. The prof was cool, he told us not to buy DuPont stuff and don’t pay our phone tax.”

As I’ve always understood it, the idea of a social contract is that the people of a nation have an unspoken agreement with their rulers, that the rulers will treat them reasonably and look out for the collective interest (very broad outlines here) and in return, the people will generally respect the rulers. It’s not meant to be taken as literal contract.

By the way, that only applies to ethnic/religious/other forms of tribal nation, because in some way of looking at it, those people are stuck with each other, like a family. There’s no natural basis for any particular kind of government, so they have to have an understanding between rulers and ruled (or else have chaos).

The US, with no ethnic or religious identity, has a literal contract – the Constitution. There is no social contract here as the term is commonly defined, and if someone says there is, they just woke up for five minutes here and there in poli sci class.

Sorry if this isn’t really tight explanation – you could write a whole book about this topic

That’s part of my point. If it’s not a literal contract, then a different word should be used. Also, collective agreements aren’t really agreements either. That is to say, someone inherently can’t agree on something on my behalf. Only I can agree to something on my behalf.

But yea. The Constitution is a much better document to consider. People who resort to “social contract arguments” are often trying to justify something that is not in writing, and it’s just a hollow concept to me.

Especially when they start naming fancy philosophers, which strikes me as a sort of “appeal to authority” type fallacy.

Niles L: “of course its made up, there is nothing binding about anything of human existance other then u the individual exists. The social contract is simply the most pratical and natural form of human organization. any form of govt is based upon som…e form of the sc, without it we would simply have been pray to the dangers of nature, cuz humans, by themseleves, alone, are rather pathetic animals, no great physical attributes besides our brain, which is actually why we came up with the sc, which is just a fancy name for human communal organization, as it is and always will be our best hope at survival”

Bruce B0mb: “Merrifield! Anyway, I know that Clint will have something to say on this. What comes to my alleged mind this morning is a young George Mason student who told me she was studying corporate anthropology. I had taken a course in cultural anthr…o but had never heard of corporate anthro, so I asked. She explained that corporations hire her to come in and draw an organizational chart of what is, because it’s usually different than what was formally planned. So, this morning I’m thinking that’s what is likely so in the social contract situation. What we think we’re doing, and what we are actually doing, is two different animals. People don’t negotiate very much, I mean it’s not like the Teamsters Union, nobody signs nothing, and I can’t find my shop steward.”